template-no-unnecessary-component-helper is not hbs-only - #2842
Merged
Conversation
The rule has a dedicated strict-mode code path and gjs/gts tests, so the hbs-only marker contradicts its own behavior. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
Contributor
🏎️ Benchmark Comparison
Full mitata output |
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
templateMode: 'loose'contradicts the rule's own implementation. It has a strict-mode branch (isStrictMode) that picks thenoUnnecessaryComponentKebabmessage and skips the autofix when the component name is not a valid JS identifier, and the test file already asserts reports fortest.gjsandtest.gts.Verified by linting a
.gjsfile with only this rule on:Changes
templateModetoboth, which drops the "HBS Only" note. No behavior change; the note was just wrong.Found while implementing RFC #1217 in #2840, which puts this rule in Appendix A. The RFC is right.
🤖 Generated with Claude Code